Republican Ex-EPA Chief Criticizes Bush

 

By ERIK STETSON

Associated Press writer

 

CONCORD, New Hampshire - One of the Environmental Protection Agency?s earliest leaders, flanked by Republican state politicians, blasted the president?s record on the environment Monday during a news conference organized by an anti-Bush environmental group.

 

Russell Train, a Republican, was the EPA?s second chief under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. But he said Bush?s record is so dismal he?s casting his presidential vote for Democrat John Kerry in November.

 

"It?s almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," he said. "I find this deeply disturbing."

 

Bush supporters defended the president?s record. Tom Thomson, owner of Thomson Family Tree Farm in Orford, praised the Healthy Forests Initiative as good legislation that protects loggers as well as forests. He predicted current policies would have positive long-term effects.

 

Bush "has made progress over the last four years giving us cleaner air, water and land," Thomson said in a statement.

 

Officials with the state?s Bush-Cheney campaign said sulfur dioxide emissions are down 9 percent, while nitrogen oxide emissions are down 13 percent. They added that the 2002 Farm Bill set aside more than $40 billion in conservation funding.

 

Environment2004, the environmental group, released a report Monday titled "Damaging the Granite State." It criticizes presidential policies on energy, global warming, toxic waste and air and water pollution.

 

"It is the worst record in modern history, unfortunately," said Aimee Christensen, the group?s executive director. "They are systematically weakening our keystone public health protections and undermining decades of bipartisan leadership on the environment."

 

The report faults Bush?s energy policy, for example, for slashing renewable energy funding. According to the report, the cuts are holding back New Hampshire, which could produce 43 percent of its energy from wind power. The report also claims the state could add 5,000 jobs by 2020 with more renewable energy and efficiency investments.

 

The report cites such sources as federal and state agency reports as well as newspaper articles and advocacy-group studies.

 

The two Republican state politicians who spoke - Rep. Jim Pilliod, a pediatrician, and former Sen. Rick Russman, who once headed the Senate Environmental Committee, did not endorse Kerry. They said they participated to stress the importance of environmental issues.

 

Russman said funding was cut for cleanup work at two of the state?s 19 Superfund sites. He also said the administration?s standards would delay mercury emissions cleanup until at least 2018. Pilliod added that mothers and children are particularly vulnerable to mercury pollution.

 

Train also accused Bush of letting weakening the Clean Air Act. The record, he added, falls short of those set by former Republican presidents ranging from Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated creating national parks and forests, to George H.W. Bush, who supported new anti-air-pollution standards.

 

The Bush record is "appalling, with very, very few exceptions," Train said. He described presidential policies as "geared to rolling back environmental protections."

 

Environment2004 has been actively campaigning against Bush policies and has released a national report on its Web site criticizing them.

LINK

its no secret that Bush has destroyed all environmental policy and headway of hte past 15 years....

 

 

its also no secret that Bush doesnt care at all about the environment.

its no secret that Bush has destroyed all environmental policy and headway of hte past 15 years....

 

 

its also no secret that Bush doesnt care at all about the environment.

469907[/snapback]

 

 

Its also no secret that Government should do no more than provide informaiton to individuals about preserving the environment. And it is also no secret that the more restricitons you apply for any reason including the environment goes against our rights of life, liberty, and property. You want to help the environment? conservation is good like teddy did, stay away from placing restricitons on businesses or people

So should this same logic to any government regulation on anything?

 

 

Or just the environment?

why can't businesses just dump hazerdous wastes if they want to? why can't corporations just bulldoze wherever they please? why can't factories pump as much pollution as they need to into the atmosphere? hey, that's what would be most profitable for them, so why put any restrictions on it?

 

should we assume their collective conscience is going to keep them from it? :whistle

So should this same logic to any government regulation on anything?

 

 

Or just the environment?

469925[/snapback]

 

I believe this olds true for all aspects of our lives, whether it be environment, behavior, or anything else of the sort. And by the way why do you refer to these businesses and factories and such as 'them' The truth is that unless you were born wealthy we need to go out there and work for a living, and if I have enough money to open a factory I sure as hell want to be bale to make my profits and not go out of business b/c govt is so heavily restricting me. Realistically of course, there need to be some limited regulations so that our environment doesnt get completely demolished, but these need to be trimmed down to what is totally and completely necessary, not some crazy regulations b/c some politician needs to appease the green peace lobby

This is what I consider an absolute extreme. The Republicans are for deregulating business to the point where the environment is left to the mercy of greedy corporations... That is why I see no difference between Libertarians and Republicans. They all want to let corporations run America.

 

I Absolutely Refuse to let them do it!

The problem is in the aspect of keeping govt out of our hair libertarians and reps are the same, but there are differences in most other aspects especially immigration and values. And lets put it this way I rather have businesses and capital controlling job growth and quality of life than to have government do it, because once the power starts coming in they start taking more of our freedom away

The problem is in the aspect of keeping govt out of our hair libertarians and reps are the same, but there are differences in most other aspects especially immigration and values. And lets put it this way I rather have businesses and capital controlling job growth and quality of life than to have government do it, because once the power starts coming in they start taking more of our freedom away

470084[/snapback]

 

I'd rather go live in the North Pole before letting corporations take over the government instead of the government ensuring the rights of the people are not stripped down for profit.

The problem is in the aspect of keeping govt out of our hair libertarians and reps are the same, but there are differences in most other aspects especially immigration and values. And lets put it this way I rather have businesses and capital controlling job growth and quality of life than to have government do it, because once the power starts coming in they start taking more of our freedom away

470084[/snapback]

 

I'd rather go live in the North Pole before letting corporations take over the government instead of the government ensuring the rights of the people are not stripped down for profit.

470091[/snapback]

 

I rather live in north pole rather than in a country where government and the elitists think that the average american is so stupid that they need to decide for us what to do with OUR money, OUR choices, and how we're supposed to think.

The problem is in the aspect of keeping govt out of our hair libertarians and reps are the same, but there are differences in most other aspects especially immigration and values. And lets put it this way I rather have businesses and capital controlling job growth and quality of life than to have government do it, because once the power starts coming in they start taking more of our freedom away

470084[/snapback]

 

I'd rather go live in the North Pole before letting corporations take over the government instead of the government ensuring the rights of the people are not stripped down for profit.

470091[/snapback]

 

I rather live in north pole rather than in a country where government and the elitists think that the average american is so stupid that they need to decide for us what to do with OUR money, OUR choices, and how we're supposed to think.

470297[/snapback]

 

I'd rather let you go to the North Pole than letting a group of elitists decide what is good for the average american. :thumbup

 

I'll give you really good winter gear I have, since I won't be needing it anymore.

The problem is in the aspect of keeping govt out of our hair libertarians and reps are the same, but there are differences in most other aspects especially immigration and values. And lets put it this way I rather have businesses and capital controlling job growth and quality of life than to have government do it, because once the power starts coming in they start taking more of our freedom away

470084[/snapback]

 

I'd rather go live in the North Pole before letting corporations take over the government instead of the government ensuring the rights of the people are not stripped down for profit.

470091[/snapback]

 

I rather live in north pole rather than in a country where government and the elitists think that the average american is so stupid that they need to decide for us what to do with OUR money, OUR choices, and how we're supposed to think.

470297[/snapback]

 

I'd rather let you go to the North Pole than letting a group of elitists decide what is good for the average american. :thumbup

 

I'll give you really good winter gear I have, since I won't be needing it anymore.

470312[/snapback]

 

Well if you vote for Kerry yo're defintely letting a group of elitists decide what is good for the average american. Same thing wiht bush really, the average american needs to decide for themselves and govt needs to stay the hell away from our lives.

The problem is in the aspect of keeping govt out of our hair libertarians and reps are the same, but there are differences in most other aspects especially immigration and values. And lets put it this way I rather have businesses and capital controlling job growth and quality of life than to have government do it, because once the power starts coming in they start taking more of our freedom away

470084[/snapback]

 

I'd rather go live in the North Pole before letting corporations take over the government instead of the government ensuring the rights of the people are not stripped down for profit.

470091[/snapback]

 

I rather live in north pole rather than in a country where government and the elitists think that the average american is so stupid that they need to decide for us what to do with OUR money, OUR choices, and how we're supposed to think.

470297[/snapback]

 

I'd rather let you go to the North Pole than letting a group of elitists decide what is good for the average american. :thumbup

 

I'll give you really good winter gear I have, since I won't be needing it anymore.

470312[/snapback]

 

Well if you vote for Kerry yo're defintely letting a group of elitists decide what is good for the average american. Same thing wiht bush really, the average american needs to decide for themselves and govt needs to stay the hell away from our lives.

470646[/snapback]

 

I'm voting for Kerry precisely because he is for ensuring that Big business don't take advantage of the little guy. I don't know about you, but I sure respect a wealthy man who fights for the rights of everyone to become successfull and stops corporations from stomping on my rights. :thumbup Go Kerry!

ya bush v kerry.

 

 

 

 

great choice between the two.

 

 

 

i know of no other man in office that would rape the environment like bush....so i know he sure as hell is not getting my vote.

 

 

 

 

no way.

 

 

no how.

 

 

 

no chance in hell.

ya bush v kerry.

 

great choice between the two.

 

i know of no other man in office that would rape the environment like bush....so i know he sure as hell is not getting my vote.

 

no way.

 

no how.

 

no chance in hell.

470762[/snapback]

 

Kerry is not perfect, but I am proud to have him as our candidate. He is a man of integrity and a real leader. It is about time we get a man with the intelligence and courage necessary to bring this country back to where it used to be. He may not be the answer to all our prayers, but one thing is for sure, he will do a hell of a job compared to this madness called Bush administration. We need to be respected around the world again, only John Kerry can achieve that.

 

John Kerry is not an environmentalist, but he is not going to destroy the environment like Bush is doing.

i dont expect an environmentalist to ever reach office.

 

 

 

 

just dont basically make teh EPA worthless like Bush has done.

i think this thing that legacy speaks of....isn't that freedom? The government letting us think for ourselves?

 

And, I've read that most forest and wetlands (this is in response to the tree-hugging cartoon) are not destroyed by big corporations dumping their wastes...or by companies tearing down trees....it's because of development. More animals have become endangered in North America because of development. The major cause is loss of habitat...caused by subdivisions, new strip malls, etc.

 

In fact, forestry companies use a system of replanting (i forget the % and such). I have a friend who's dad owns a lot of property and got sizeably wealthy off forestry on his land. He's a smart business man and somewhat of a conservationist in the fact that he tears down trees, but plants new ones. That way he (or his children or children's children) won't run of a money supply (trees) because new ones will grow back.

 

I mean, I learned this in 3rd grade (we had some tree-hugger as our teacher). When companies tear down trees, they plant new ones.

 

If we are worried about our environment (I won't count water and air in this statement), we should be worried about development. Yah people need a place to live....but filling in wetlands and tearing down habitats all so people can move out of their old house and live somewhere 15 minutes away.

Superfund has been the biggest example of how he has raped this enviroment.

 

Look at Bush's entire enviromental record, notice most of them came on a friday afternoon or the day before or during a major holiday. It's a political rule of thumb, announce your bad news at those times.

 

Newt is just as much to blame for the enviroment but Bush and who he has appointed to these matters are appaling

i think this thing that legacy speaks of....isn't that freedom? The government letting us think for ourselves?

 

And, I've read that most forest and wetlands (this is in response to the tree-hugging cartoon) are not destroyed by big corporations dumping their wastes...or by companies tearing down trees....it's because of development. More animals have become endangered in North America because of development. The major cause is loss of habitat...caused by subdivisions, new strip malls, etc.

 

In fact, forestry companies use a system of replanting (i forget the % and such). I have a friend who's dad owns a lot of property and got sizeably wealthy off forestry on his land. He's a smart business man and somewhat of a conservationist in the fact that he tears down trees, but plants new ones. That way he (or his children or children's children) won't run of a money supply (trees) because new ones will grow back.

 

I mean, I learned this in 3rd grade (we had some tree-hugger as our teacher). When companies tear down trees, they plant new ones.

 

If we are worried about our environment (I won't count water and air in this statement), we should be worried about development. Yah people need a place to live....but filling in wetlands and tearing down habitats all so people can move out of their old house and live somewhere 15 minutes away.

470799[/snapback]

 

 

Well put furman freedom is precisely that choices need to be left up to the individual not to the government. And to respond to lina, the problem is Kerry's ideology is not to offer a chance for americans to become successful, because the basic idea of taxing the successful in order to 'help' the 'average' american are nonsense. the average america works hard for a living, and these high taxes to help the 'poor' dont allow them to have enough money to actually become successful and increase their quality of life. As income goes up so do their taxes, never allowing them to fully reach the plateau where they can reak the benefits of their hard earned money. and at the other end of the spectrum a culture of dependancy forms where people think why work for money when Im getting it for free. We need to people to keep their hard earned money, and just enough help for the poor to be able to get back on their feet and start working as well. Kerry does not want to change the current system and by maintaing the status quo will just increase the culture of dependancy and will hurt hard working people trying to imrpove their lives and those of their families.

if our government wasn't so damn big, taxes wouldn't be so much of a problem

Well put furman freedom is precisely that choices need to be left up to the individual not to the government. And to respond to lina, the problem is Kerry's ideology is not to offer a chance for americans to become successful, because the basic idea of taxing the successful in order to 'help' the 'average' american are nonsense. the average america works hard for a living, and these high taxes to help the 'poor' dont allow them to have enough money to actually become successful and increase their quality of life. As income goes up so do their taxes, never allowing them to fully reach the plateau where they can reak the benefits of their hard earned money. and at the other end of the spectrum a culture of dependancy forms where people think why work for money when Im getting it for free. We need to people to keep their hard earned money, and just enough help for the poor to be able to get back on their feet and start working as well. Kerry does not want to change the current system and by maintaing the status quo will just increase the culture of dependancy and will hurt hard working people trying to imrpove their lives and those of their families.

471772[/snapback]

 

Just wondering Legacy would you think an education would have something to do with increasing your way of life being able to see your kid achieve a better way of life through getting a job which requires a certain deal of education. States as of now are 80 billion in the hole, federal jobs have been cut and it's all over the papers here where it's refered to by our elected officials as "right sizing". Would you think that having a job is a little bit better than having to pay more taxes? Oh by the way do States get their money from the federal government through taxes?

 

When our government has cut taxes it dips into my generation to make up for that, please tell me how this is benefiting my way of life when I grow up seeing that public schools are still in shambles(I've been blessed enough to have a family who has worked their ass off to get me through school even through sacrifices). When we're borrowing money we're now paying interest on it that is growing till the day it explodes and today's youth is left with a mess. Neccesary spending is not going away and even now we're taking money from it(Police and FIre as an example), how are we going to support these institutions with less taxes without taking any more funding from an already underfunded program.

 

If we do continue to borrow to support funds that are needed but not through tax money, within eight years interest on borrowed money would cost more than all other federal outlays combined, about a decade later the entire non social security budger would be devoted to interest payments, nothing would be available for defense, homeland security, road, and education.

 

Ten years after that interest would be twice as high as our share of the economy. Now tell me where is this going to help the working class american, to be paying to a deficit rather than education, but wait his taxes would be lower :plain

 

Of course taxing the rich will help, their the ones with the money. If I take 5% out of a dollar you're left with 95 cents, nothing was really taken away and nothing that I took away will help me. I take that 5% away from a thousand and I have 50 bucks which is much more useful than 5 cents. Tax cuts are fine if their going to the middle and lower class rather than having millionares benefit from it while the middle class are getting below the average and will still have to pay for the rich to get more than them.